Submitted 26 September 2014Accepted 14 October 2014Published 30 October 2014
Corresponding authorG. Christopher Cutler,[email protected]
Academic editorDezene Huber
Additional Information andDeclarations can be found onpage 19
DOI 10.7717/peerj.652
Copyright2014 Cutler et al.
Distributed underCreative Commons CC-BY 4.0
OPEN ACCESS
A large-scale field study examining effectsof exposure to clothianidin seed-treatedcanola on honey bee colony health,development, and overwintering successG. Christopher Cutler1, Cynthia D. Scott-Dupree2, Maryam Sultan2,Andrew D. McFarlane2 and Larry Brewer3
1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS,Canada
2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada3 Smithers Viscient, Carolina Research Center, Snow Camp, NC, USA
ABSTRACTIn summer 2012, we initiated a large-scale field experiment in southern Ontario,Canada, to determine whether exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola (oil seedrape) has any adverse impacts on honey bees. Colonies were placed in clothianidinseed-treated or control canola fields during bloom, and thereafter were moved to anapiary with no surrounding crops grown from seeds treated with neonicotinoids.Colony weight gain, honey production, pest incidence, bee mortality, number ofadults, and amount of sealed brood were assessed in each colony throughout summerand autumn. Samples of honey, beeswax, pollen, and nectar were regularly collected,and samples were analyzed for clothianidin residues. Several of these endpoints werealso measured in spring 2013. Overall, colonies were vigorous during and after theexposure period, and we found no effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treatedcanola on any endpoint measures. Bees foraged heavily on the test fields duringpeak bloom and residue analysis indicated that honey bees were exposed to lowlevels (0.52 ppb) of clothianidin in pollen. Low levels of clothianidin were detectedin a few pollen samples collected toward the end of the bloom from control hives,illustrating the difficulty of conducting a perfectly controlled field study with free-ranging honey bees in agricultural landscapes. Overwintering success did not differsignificantly between treatment and control hives, and was similar to overwinteringcolony loss rates reported for the winter of 20122013 for beekeepers in Ontario andCanada. Our results suggest that exposure to canola grown from seed treated withclothianidin poses low risk to honey bees.
Subjects Agricultural Science, Entomology, Environmental Sciences, ToxicologyKeywords Honey bees, Clothianidin, Neonicotinoid, Canola, Pollinators, Seed-treatment
INTRODUCTIONThe neonicotinoid class of insecticideswhich includes imidacloprid, acetamiprid,
clothianidin, thiamethoxam, thiacloprid, dinotefuran and nitenpyramare considered
an important tool for pest management in many agricultural systems. As of 2006, this
How to cite this article Cutler et al. (2014), A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola onhoney bee colony health, development, and overwintering success. PeerJ 2:e652; DOI 10.7717/peerj.652
mailto:[email protected]://peerj.com/academic-boards/editors/https://peerj.com/academic-boards/editors/http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
insecticide class accounted for approximately $US 1.56 billion worldwide, representing
nearly 17% of the global insecticide market (Jeschke & Nauen, 2008). When first introduced
in the mid-1990s, neonicotinoids were well-received by pesticide regulators, ecotoxicol-
ogists, and farmers, owing to their novel mode of action, efficacy against multiple pests,
and selectivity for insects over vertebrates (Jeschke & Nauen, 2008; Matsuda et al., 2001).
In addition, the systemic activity of neonicotinoids allows them to be applied to soil or
seeds at low rates, providing protection to crops in their more vulnerable early stages. This
reduces the number of foliar insecticide applications required, which are applied at much
greater application rates and generally pose more hazard to non-target organisms.
There is much concern, however, regarding potential risks of neonicotinoids to
pollinators, mainly bees (Apoidea). Several neonicotinoids are highly toxic to bees
(Iwasa et al., 2004; Scott-Dupree, Conroy & Harris, 2009) and mitigation measures are
needed to minimize pollinator exposure where identified hazards may occur. For example,
for foliar applications of compounds in the nitroguanidine class of neonicotinoids
(imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran), there are warnings on
product labels in North America not to apply or allow them to drift on to flowering crops
or weeds if bees are foraging in the treated area. To minimize exposure to contaminated
dust generated during the planting of neonicotinoid treated seeds, which can result in
bee-kill incidents (Cutler, Scott-Dupree & Drexler, 2014), efforts are being made to improve
the seed treatment process, modify planting equipment, and encourage best management
practices among growers and beekeepers to reduce pollinator risk from exposure to
neonicotinoid contaminated dust from treated seed (Nuyttens et al., 2013; Health Canada
Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 2013).
There is perhaps more debate regarding potential risks to bees through feeding on
nectar or pollen from plants grown from seed treated with neonicotinoids. Several
studies have found that neonicotinoids can cause various adverse chronic/sublethal
effects on honey bees (Apis spp.) and bumble bees (Bombus sp.). These studies have
been important in demonstrating different ways toxicity can occur, and the potential
hazards neonicotinoids pose to pollinators. Some have argued, however, that such studies
have used unrealistic exposure scenarios (Campbell, 2013; Cresswell, 2013; Cresswell &
Thompson, 2012; EFSA, 2012b; Walters, 2013), either subjecting bees to doses that are
higher than those typically experienced in field (Gill, Ramos-Rodriguez & Raine, 2012;
Henry et al., 2012), or subjecting bees in the laboratory exclusively to food spiked with
neonicotinoids for prolonged periods (Whitehorn et al., 2012). On the other hand,
semi-field (field cage) and field studies have found that individual bees and colonies are
not adversely impacted when foraging on neonicotinoid seed-treated crops (Cutler &
Scott-Dupree, 2007; Cutler & Scott-Dupree, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2009; Pilling et al., 2013;
Pohorecka et al., 2012; Schmuck & Keppler, 2003; Schmuck et al., 2001; Schneider et al., 2012;
Tasei, Ripault & Rivault, 2001; Thompson et al., 2013).
Clothianidin is used on millions of hectares of canola (Brassica napus L.) in western
Canada and elsewhere, mainly to provide protection against early-season defoliators such
as flea beetles (Phyllotreta spp.). There is concern by some scientists, beekeepers, legislators,
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 2/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
and members of the general public that bees foraging on clothianidin seed-treated canola
will suffer acute or chronic effects that compromise colony health. Here we present results
of a large-scale field study done in 20122013 in southern Ontario, Canada, undertaken to
determine whether or not exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has any adverse
impacts on honey bees (Apis mellifera L). We examined numerous colony endpoints
before, during, and after treatment exposure in the field.
MATERIALS AND METHODSThis research was conducted in accordance with the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (EPA, 1989; OECD,
1999). The experimental design was developed by GCC, CDSD, LB, in consultation with
personnel from Bayer CropScience, the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory
Agency, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. No claim of confi-
dentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling
within the scope of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA Section
10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C).
Seed treatmentClothianidin (CAS No.: 205510-53-8) was applied to canola seed as Prosper FX formu-
lation (20.4 % clothianidin, 0.5% trifloxystrobin, 3.6% carbathiin and 0.4% metalaxyl) at
the Bayer CropScience Seed Technology Center (Research Triangle Park, NC). Seed was
treated at the target label rate of 1,400 ml Prosper per 100 kg of seed. An equal amount
of seed was treated with a control formulation that contained trifloxystrobin, carbathiin,
and metalaxyl at their registered label rates, but did not contain clothianidin. Seed was
shipped to the Bayer CropScience Canada Rockwood Research Farm (Rockwood, ON) and
stored in plastic bins (separate seed bin for each treatment) at temperatures that ranged
from 3.9 to 27.4 C. Subsequent analysis of treated seed confirmed that the targeted seed
treatment rate was met, at 91% of the nominal treatment rate (maximum allowed on the
label), which is within the acceptable range of error of the analytical method.
Field sites and plantingFields under the ownership of cooperating farmers were used in this experiment and
their consent was granted to access study sites, and to apply pesticides and fertilizers.
Application of pesticides and fertilizer complied with all government and manufacturer
regulations.
Ten fields in southwest Ontario, Canada, suitable for growing spring canola were
chosen. Fields were in Brant (1), Oxford (1), Waterloo (5), Wellington (2), and Wentworth
(1) counties within an area of approximately 60 65 km. To our knowledge, which
involved consultation with growers throughout the region and ground-truthing the area
around the test sites, no other canola was being grown within foraging distance of our
experimental fields. Fields were located a minimum of 10 km (6 mi) apart and in the
previous 12 months had not received applications of neonicotinoids such as clothianidin
(Poncho, Titan, and Prosper), imidacloprid (Admire, Gaucho, Alias, Grapple, and Stress
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 3/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Shield), thiacloprid (Calypso), acetamiprid (Assail), or thiamethoxam (Cruiser, Actara,
and Helix). Fields that had been planted with wheat the previous year were chosen to
minimize the possibility that selected study fields had received neonicotinoid treatments
in the previous year. In southern Ontario, only a very small percentage of wheat is grown
from seed treated with neonicotinoids and these wheat fields would have been planted the
previous fall (2010). Thus, the time since any previous neonicotinoid treatments had been
made on test fields to the start of the study was at least 1.5 years.
All sites received 400 kg/ha of fertilizer (28% N, 5.6% P, 7% K, 8.4% S), applied with
a broadcast spreader and were prepared for planting with a McFarlane Reel Disk. Five
field sites selected at random were planted as control fields and the other five sites
were planted as clothianidin (treatment) fields. All fields were planted over three days
on 1012 May 2012. Each site was planted with approximately 2 ha (5 acres; range =
2.002.19 ha) canola according to local agronomic practices. The seeder was calibrated
to deliver 5.6 kg canola seed/ha (5 lbs/acre), which ensured a high number of plants
and an abundance of blooms on which bees could forage. All sites were treated equally
with Liberty 200SN (glufosinate ammonium) for weed control and Decis 5EC
(deltamethrin) for early season flea beetle control. The interval between the last Decis 5EC
application and the time when hives were first placed in the test fields was at least 30 days.
Colony preparation and managementPrior to placement in canola plots on the study sites, 44 honey bee colonies were
maintained at a spring apiary located at the Arkell Agricultural Research Station
(N43313.8;W80104.9) and under the management of the Honey Bee Research
Facility (HBRF), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Forty of these colonies were used
in the study, and four were maintained as spares. Each colony consisted of a single brood
chamber measuring 24 cm (95/8) deep, containing 9 frames and one follower board to
replace the 10th frame. The follower board in the brood chamber maintained the 10-frame
spacing typical of commercial colonies, while facilitating the frequent colony assessments
conducted during the study by allowing more working space in the brood chamber. A
single shallow empty honey super, measuring 16.5 cm (65/8) deep and containing 9
frames with plastic foundation, was placed above the brood chamber. Queen bees were
provided by HBRF and all were of the same lineage and approximately the same age. A
queen excluder was placed between the brood chamber and honey super to confine the
queen to the brood chamber. Colonies were adjusted for strength, as necessary, prior to
being moved to the canola fields. The strength adjustments established similar quantities of
food stores (pollen and nectar), sealed brood, and adults in each colony.
Colonies also were assessed for presence of Varroa mite (Varroa destructor), tracheal
mite (Acarapis woodi), American foulbrood (AFB; Paenibacillus larvae), European
foulbrood (EFB; Melissococcus plutonius), Nosema spp. (N. apis and/or N. ceranae), and
chalkbrood before placement in canola fields (Shimanuki & Knox, 2000). Hives infected
with diseases as determined during the initial hive assessments were not used in the study.
Disease and parasite analyses were conducted again after removal from canola, and during
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 4/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
spring 2013 assessments. Colonies were treated with Oxytet-25 (Oxytetracycline HCL;
Medivet Pharmaceuticals Ltd., High River, AB) mixed with powdered sugar in early spring
of 2012 and in early October 2012 to prevent EFB/AFB. To treat for Varroa mites, hives
received Apivar (Amitraz; Medivet Pharmaceuticals Ltd., High River, AB) strips in early
October of 2012. These medications and acaricides were applied before and after the field
(canola) phase of the study. No medications were applied to hives while they were in test
fields. All study colonies received equal mite/disease treatment, even when threshold levels
of these pests were not present in some colonies. Pest and disease status of colonies were
assessed and recorded during hive assessments, which were conducted during 2012 on
day-4, 7, 14, 21, 42, 63, and 84, and during spring 2013 assessment.
Honey supers were added to or removed from colonies as needed (i.e., removed when
they were full of honey). Brood boxes and honey supers were weighed and labeled
to facilitate accurate colony-component cross-referencing and accurate assessment of
productivity by weight.
Colony transport and placementA 7 7 m clearing was mowed in the middle of each canola field to accommodate four
colonies. The central clearing was vehicle accessible via a laneway running from the edge of
the field on one side to the clearing. When 25% of the canola was in bloom on test fields
(determined by visual estimation), colonies were moved in. The presence of 25% canola
bloom ensured that bees would not forage off site, as would occur if colonies were moved
to fields before bloom. Colonies were moved by pick-up truck into the canola fields during
the nights of 2526 (16 colonies), 2627 (16 colonies), and 27 (8 colonies) June, 2012.
Colonies were randomly assigned to fields. The first full day colonies were in canola fields
was designated Day 0. Four colonies were positioned in the central clearing of each field so
that the entrances of the colonies faced NW, NE, SE and SW.
Colonies were removed from study fields after 14 days and transported during darkness
on the nights of 1011, 1112, and 1213 July, 2012 to an isolated apiary. It was intended
that at least 25% of canola blooms would be remaining in the fields at the time colonies
were moved out of the canola fields, in order to minimize foraging of bees off site. However,
due to unusually high daily temperatures and drought conditions, some canola fields were
below 25% bloom at the time of colony removal. The isolated apiary was located at the
Land Forces Central Area Training Facility (LFCATF) (Meaford, Ontario; 443913.6N,
804052.9W), a Canadian Forces military base approximately 165 km northeast of
Guelph. So far as we are aware, this site was isolated from any crops grown from seeds
treated with neonicotinoids by approximately 10 km. At the LFCATF apiary, colonies
from control fields were separated from colonies from clothianidin-treated fields by
approximately 40 m, and intra-treatment colonies were approximately 2 m from each
other. No other colonies were present at or near to the LFCATF apiary. At this site bees
foraged on a variety of wildflowers.
In September 2012, after bloom of agricultural crops in southern Ontario was finished,
colonies were again prepared and moved at night from the LFCATF apiary to a winter
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 5/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
apiary located at the University of Guelph - Arkell Agricultural Research Station. Once at
the fall/winter apiary, all colonies received medication (e.g., antibiotics), and treatments
for Varroa mite and tracheal mites, based on results of the fall pest and disease assessments.
Beginning 2 October 2012, colonies were fed via hive-top feeders. Each feeder was initially
filled with approximately 2 L of sugar solution (2:1 sugar/water). The feeders were checked
at intervals of approximately 34 days and refilled as needed. Colony bottom entrances
were reduced and an upper entrance was provided, in mid-October. Feeders were all
removed 26 October and on 15 November colonies were wrapped with insulation for
protection against subfreezing temperatures.
Colony endpoint measuresWeight gainUsing a tripod-mounted, certified scale, colonies were weighed after dark on the night
they were transported to canola fields and again after dark on the night of transport to the
LFCATF apiary.
Honey yieldHoney yield per colony was determined by weighing empty honey supers containing
empty frames with foundation before placement on colonies and weighing them again
after removal from colonies. Honey supers were labeled to allow cross-referencing to the
colony from which the super was removed. Supers were removed from colonies when full
of honey and replaced with empty supers as needed throughout the study. The sum of all
honey super yields for a given colony equaled the total honey yield for that colony over
approximately a 3.5-month period.
Adult mortalityColony adult mortality was measured in each hive using drop zone dead bee (DZDB)
traps (Rogers, Williams & Bins, 2009), consisting of a 50 100 cm wood frame with fine
mesh wire screening on the bottom and coarse mesh on the top, positioned at the hive
entrance. The DZDB trap was a modification of a trap originally described by Porrini et
al. (2003). Dead worker and drone bees were removed from the traps and counted twice
weekly during the period colonies were in the study fields. Collections were made early in
the week and again late in the week so that duration between collections was 3 or 4 days.
If available after counting, for one dead bee assessment per week, approximately 10 g of
collected dead bees from each colony were pooled by field to produce a 40 g sample, and
then placed in a brown glass jar, labeled, and stored frozen at 10 C. Bee samples were
later shipped to the USDA-APHIS National Research Center, Gastonia, NC for clothianidin
residue analysis.
Brood assessmentsBrood assessments were conducted on Day-4, prior to movement of colonies to the canola
fields, and at least twice while colonies were in canola (Days 7 and 14). In addition,
assessments were conducted approximately every 21 days at the fall and winter apiaries
until mid-October, and again in the spring of 2013.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 6/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
During each colony assessment, presence or absence of eggs and unsealed larvae was
determined visually and noted. The number of sealed brood cells on all frames was
determined for all colonies. After doing adult strength assessments (see below), adult
bees were shaken and brushed off frames into the brood box. The number of sealed brood
cells on 9 frames per colony (i.e., two sides per frame) was captured as digital images
using Canon EOS 5D Mark II digital cameras with 100 mm Macro lenses and portable
fabric light-boxes, which facilitated consistent lighting during the image collections. A
camera-mounting device that also contained a pivoting frame rack was placed into the
light box. Colony frames were set on the rack while images were recorded. This mounting
device facilitated an exact focal length for every digital image collected. The digital cameras
were computer-controlled (laptop PC) and collected images were automatically stored on
the camera memory card and simultaneously downloaded to the laptop PC hard drive
in the field as a back-up precaution. Collected digital images were downloaded to at least
one secondary electronic data storage medium once the equipment was returned to the
laboratory.
Digital images were analyzed using IndiCounter R, Version 2.3, digital image analysis
software (WSC Scientific, Heidelberg, Germany). The analysis software counted the
number of sealed brood cells per frame. High accuracy of the counting software was
verified by comparing values obtained on 100 randomly selected images (frames) to
manual counts of cells from those images; the difference in counts with the software
and manual counts was an average of 1.00% (42 cells per frame; t-test, P = 0.82). The
quantified values for number of sealed brood cells per frame were used to calculate total
sealed brood cells per colony.
Adult strength assessmentsAdult strength assessments were conducted and verified concurrently with the brood
production assessments using the methodology and equipment described for sealed brood.
Digital images were acquired with adult bees present on both sides of each brood frame in
each colony. The raw images were transferred to a laptop PC in the field and copied again
to a second data storage medium in the laboratory. The IndiCounter software identified
and counted individual bees on each frame and these numbers were used to calculate total
number of bees in the hive at the time of the assessment.
Spring 2013 colony assessmentsBetween 20 and 25 May 2013, when temperatures were 15 C and there was no heavy
rainfall, the following data were collected: determination of dead and live colonies; capped
brood assessment with digital imagery; adult strength assessment with digital imagery;
determination of presence of queen, eggs and larvae; beeswax for residue analysis; and bee
samples for Varroa mite, tracheal mite, and Nosema spore counts. Methods used were as
described above.
Sample collectionNectar, honey, pollen, and beeswax were collected from colonies at each field (samples
from four colonies pooled by field) on Day-4 (except pollen), 7, and 14, seven days after
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 7/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
movement of colonies to the LFCATF apiary, and thereafter at approximately 21-day
intervals. Nectar and honey were collected until mid-October, and the final pollen samples
were taken on 18 September. The final beeswax samples in autumn 2012 were collected
21 September, and beeswax samples were again collected on 2025 May during the spring
2013 colony assessment. Collections on Day 84 occurred over 3 days (17, 18, 21 September,
2012) due to inclement weather.
Nectar that was freshly deposited in wax cells of the brood box or honey supers, was
extracted using a new disposable pipette or syringe, or by gently shaking a brood frame
over a large piece of wax paper and pouring the expelled nectar off the paper into a labeled
brown Nalgene or glass jar (5 g samples). Honey (5 g samples) from capped cells was
collected using new disposable spatulas or syringes placed in a labeled brown Nalgene or
glass jar. Areas of approximately 3 cm2 of food-free beeswax were collected from honey
supers and placed in labeled capped Nalgene vials or 50 ml centrifuge tubes with screw
caps. Pollen was collected using ANEL STANDARD R pollen traps. On each collection day,
the traps were active for 24 h prior to collection. Pollen samples from each hive on each
collection day were separately placed in labeled sealable plastic bags, and subsequently
transferred to labeled brown Nalgene or glass jars in the laboratory. For each date, equal
portions of pollen from each hive were combined to make a pooled sample of at least 15
g, 10 g of which was used for pesticide residue analysis (including enough for back-up
samples), with the remaining 5 g of pollen used for floral source analysis. When in the field,
all samples were immediately placed on ice or frozen ice substitute in a cooler, and placed in
a freezer at 10 C when returned to the laboratory the same day.
Pollen source analysisSubsamples of pollen collected from pollen traps were used to determine the percent
composition, by flower type, of the pollen collected by honey bees when in canola fields
and when in the LFCATF apiary site. Flower samples from flowering crops or wild flowers
observed in the vicinity of the study fields were photographed, collected and dried in small,
labeled, paper envelopes periodically during the study. The floral samples and photographs
were used as reference checks for the pollen analysis.
Residue analysisNectar, pollen, honey, beeswax, and dead bee samples, previously frozen, were packed on
frozen gelpacks and delivered to the USDA-APHIS National Science Laboratory, Gastonia,
NC for analysis. Residue analysis for pollen, honey, nectar and beeswax was initially
performed using a broad pesticide screening method (LOD for clothianidin = 1.5 ppb).
Because agricultural commodities have complex matrices that can interfere with analytical
procedures for detecting pesticide residues or other analytes, an extraction procedure was
used to improve the detection of pesticide residues. Samples were extracted for pesticide
residue analysis using method AOAC2007.01 (AOAC, 2007). This method utilizes the
QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) approach to reduce sample
suppression or enhancement effects that matrices may create during chromatographic
analysis. Analytes of interest were extracted from samples by high-speed grinding in
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 8/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
an acidified acetonitrile and water mixture followed by a clean-up to remove some
matrix components and filtration to remove particulates. Separate aliquots of extract were
analyzed for pesticide residue by gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography
(LC) techniques utilizing mass selective detection systems. A total of 70 honey and nectar
samples, 80 beeswax samples, 20 dead bee samples, and 60 pollen samples were analyzed
using this method.
After the screening analyses were complete, personnel at the Gastonia USDA lab
analyzed back-up aliquots of the same nectar and pollen samples using an analytical
method specifically for detecting clothianidin residues (LOQ = 1.0 ppb, LOD = 0.6
ppb). To improve detection sensitivity for clothianidin, extraction procedures were used
according to Kamel (2009). Analytes of interest were extracted from samples by high-speed
grinding in a mixture of high purity acetonitrile, water, and triethyl amine followed by
a clean-up procedure. Separate aliquots of extract were analyzed for clothianidin and
metabolite residues by LC techniques utilizing mass selective detection systems.
Any nectar and pollen sample materials remaining, after the two USDA analyses,
were transported to Bayer CropScience (BCS) in Research Triangle Park, North Car-
olina, where they were again analyzed for presence and quantitation of clothianidin
residues using a more sensitive analytical method (LOQ = 0.5 ppb; LOD = 0.35 ppb)
(Billian & Schoning, 2009).
Data analysist-tests were conducted to compare the effect of clothianidin seed-treatment on levels
of certain mites and diseases, colony weight gain, honey yield, overall pollen collection,
and overwinter survival. Data on the number of dead bees, adults, sealed brood cells,
and residues in pollen were analyzed using repeated measures multivariate analysis of
variance using the standard least squares fit model platform (Manova) in JMP (SAS, 2012)
with treatment as the fixed effect and time as the repeated (random) effect. Assumptions
of normal distribution of the error term and homogeneity of variance were met for all
analyses. For these data, pseudo-replication was avoided by using a single datum (mean
of the sub-samples) for each experimental unit (Hurlbert, 1984; Whitlock & Schluter,
2009). Spring 2013 Nosema spore count data were analyzed using a multivariate standard
least squares model incorporating fixed factors of treatment and colony survivorship
(i.e., colonies that were classified as dead or alive). Nosema data were square-root
transformed before analysis to fulfill normality assumptions. Unless stated otherwise,
values are presented as means standard deviation. All data analyses were done using JMP
software (SAS, 2012).
RESULTSPests and diseases 2012Counts of Varroa mites were low in our colonies. There was no difference in Varroa mite
levels of control and treatment colonies before exposure to clothianidin, and although
the number of mites per 100 bees increased while in canola fields, there was no effect
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 9/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Table 1 Effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola fields (n = 5) on various honey beecolony endpoints. Statistically significant effects ( = 0.05) are highlighted in bold.
Endpoint Effect measure Statistics
SUMMER 2012
Initial colony weight (kg) Treatment t8 = 1.05, P = 0.32
Weight gain in canola (kg) Treatment t8 = 0.18, P = 0.87
Honey yield (kg) Treatment t8 = 0.21, P = 0.84
Total pollen collected (g) Treatment t8 = 1.63, P = 0.17
Varroa mites per 100 bees Treatment F1,8 = 0.088, P = 0.77
Time F1,8 = 15.54, P = 0.0043Treatment Time F1,8 = 0.60, P = 0.46
No. dead bees (per 4 days) Treatment F1,8 = 0.062, P = 0.80
Time F3,6 = 11.29, P = 0.007Treatment Time F3,6 = 2.94, P = 0.12
No. adults Treatment F1,8 = 0.24, P = 0.20
Time F6,3 = 2.30, P = 0.26
Treatment Time F6,3 = 3.12, P = 0.19
No. sealed brood cells Treatment F1,8 = 0.001, P = 0.92
Time F6,3 = 9.35, P = 0.047Treatment Time F6,3 = 0.73, P = 0.66
% canola pollen collected by bees Treatment F1,8 = 0.55, P = 0.47
Time F1,8 = 9.89, P = 0.014Treatment Time F1,8 = 0.18, P = 0.69
Amount of pollen collected daily (g) Treatment F1,8 = 2.64, P = 0.14
Time F5,4 = 6.80, P = 0.044Treatment Time F5,4 = 0.93, P = 0.54
Pollen clothianidin residues Treatment F1,8 = 7.62, P = 0.025Time F1,8 = 0.60, P = 0.46
Treatment Time F1,8 = 2.81, P = 0.13
SPRING 2013
Overwinter mortality Treatment t8 = 0.69, P = 0.51
No. adults Treatment t8 = 0.41, P = 0.69
No. sealed brood cells Treatment t8 = 0.49, P = 0.64
Nosema counts Treatment F1,1 = 1.18, P = 0.29
Dead/Alive F1,1 = 10.36, P = 0.003Treatment Dead/Alive F1,1 = 0.02, P = 0.89
of treatment (Table 1). The number of mites per 100 bees was at or below threshold
levels of two and three mites per 100 bees for early and late summer, respectively, as
recommended by the Ontario Beekeepers Association (OBA, 2012) for both control (June:
0.74 0.58 mites/100 bees; Aug: 2.40 0.77 mites/100 bees) and treatment (June: 0.49
0.41 mites/100 bees; Aug: 2.97 2.15 mites/100 bees) colonies.
Nosema counts were also low in summer 2012. Samples from most control (12/20) and
treatment (14/20) colonies had no Nosema spores detected and the mean number of spores
per bee from control (195,000 432,450) and treatment (122,500 269,002) colonies
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 10/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Figure 1 Dead honey bees in front of colonies when in canola fields grown from control orclothianidin-treated seed. Mean number of dead honey bees collected in front of colonies over 34 dayintervals while in canola fields grown from seeds treated with or without (control) clothianidin (n = 5fields per treatment).
was not significantly different (t8 = 0.63,P = 0.53). None of the treated or control hives
showed any presence of AFB or EFB, and incidence of chalkbrood was generally very low.
In June 2012, the incidence of tracheal mite exceeded the recommended threshold of 10%
infestation (OMAFRA, 2013a) in six control colonies and five treatment colonies. The
tracheal mite threshold was not exceeded for any control or treatment colony samples
taken in late July, 2012.
Colony weight gain and honey yield 2012There was no difference in mean weight between control (27.9 1.7 kg) and treatment
(28.9 1.5 kg) colonies when initially placed in canola fields, or in weight gain when
removed from fields for transport to the LFCATF apiary (control: 14.7 5.5 kg; treatment:
14.2 4.0 kg). There was also no difference in honey yield from colonies in control (51.0
14.7 kg) or treatment (52.9 12.5 kg) fields (Table 1).
Number of dead bees, adults and sealed brood 2012The number of dead bees collected in front of hives did vary over time, but was not
influenced by treatment (Table 1; Fig. 1). Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola had
no effect on the number of adults per colony, which did not change over time. The effect
of time on adults was the same for both control and treatment colonies (Table 1; Fig. 2A).
Similarly, the number of sealed brood cells per colony was not affected by treatment,
although the number was reduced in the fall as queens ceased egg laying in preparation for
overwintering (Table 1; Fig. 2B).
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 11/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Figure 2 Number of honey bee adults and brood during and after exposure to canola grown fromcontrol or clothianidin-treated seed. Mean number of (A) adult honey bees and (B) sealed brood cellsin colonies during and after placement in canola fields grown from seeds treated with or without (control)clothianidin (n = 5 fields per treatment). Colonies were in canola for 14 days and thereafter moved to anisolated apiary away from agricultural crops.
Pollen collection 2012Honey bees foraged heavily on canola the first week of their introduction to canola fields
(Table S1). Canola pollen accounted for 88% of total pollen recovered from pollen traps
on Day 7 (control: 84.9 15.2%; treatment: 91.0 6.2%). The amount of canola pollen
collected did not differ among treatment and control fields (Table 1), but foraging on
canola dropped sharply toward the end of week two (Table 1), with only 46% of the total
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 12/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-1http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-1http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Figure 3 Pollen recovered from honey bee colonies during and after exposure to canola grown fromcontrol or clothianidin-treated seed. Mean amount of pollen recovered from pollen traps on honey beecolonies during and after placement in canola fields grown from seeds treated with or without (control)clothianidin (n = 5 fields per treatment). Colonies were in canola for 14 days and thereafter moved to anisolated apiary away from agricultural crops.
being canola pollen on Day 14 (Table S1; control: 37.5 43.3%; treatment: 54.8 46.0%).
All other pollen recovered in pollen traps was from wild flowers or ornamentals (Table
S2) with the exception of corn (Zea mays L.), which was recovered from some colonies in
control and treatment fields in small amounts in week two (Day 14; range = 07% of total
pollen content; mean = 1.3% of total pollen content). Field treatment also had no effect on
daily pollen collection per colony during or after their placement in canola fields (Fig. 3),
or on the total pollen collected from hives during the experiment (Table 1; control: 827
187 g; treatment: 688 41 g). There was a significant effect of time on the amount of
pollen collected (Table 1), with an increase in pollen recovered from pollen traps on day 42
when colonies were in the LFCATF apiary (Fig. 3). After honey bee colonies were removed
from canola fields and placed in the LFCATF apiary, no canola, corn, or soybean pollen,
nor pollen from any other crop, was recovered from pollen traps.
Spring assessment 2013One colony from a control field and one from a treatment field died prior to overwintering.
In both cases the queen disappeared from the colonies. After several weeks of monitoring,
the colonies remained queenless, with no supercedure cells, no eggs and no larvae. These
conditions defined a dead colony. Of the 19 control colonies that were alive going into
winter, 7 were classified as dead the following April (37% overwinter colony loss). Fewer
colonies from treatment fields died over the winter (5 of 19 = 26% overwinter colony loss),
but clothianidin seed-treatment had no statistically significant effect on percent colony
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 13/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-1http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-1http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-2http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652/supp-2http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
mortality (Table 1). Two additional control colonies, and one additional treatment colony,
which were noted to be weak in April, died between the April assessments and the final
colony assessments made during 2025 May.
Among live colonies, there was no difference in the number of adults (control: 8,069
5,317 individuals; treatment: 6,834 4,005 individuals) or capped brood cells (control:
6,438 5,657 cells; treatment: 4,968 3,617 cells) in spring 2013 (Table 1). Varroa
mite counts were very low, with less than one mite per 100 bees detected in all colonies.
Incidence of tracheal mite was low. There was a single control colony with a 2% infestation
level, and a single treatment colony with a 2% infestation; all other colonies had no tracheal
mite detected. AFB and EFB were not detected in any colony, and chalkbrood was only
detected on two frames of a single hive. Low incidence (34 larvae) of wax moth (Galleria
mellonella L.) larvae was detected in two colonies.
Because no live bees could be sampled from dead colonies, Nosema analysis was
conducted on dead bees from dead colonies, whereas Nosema analyses for living hives
were conducted on live bees. Whether colonies were from treated or control fields had no
effect on the number of spores per bee, but the number of Nosema spores recovered from
bees from dead colonies (2.2 107 2.5 107 spores/bee) was almost a full order of
magnitude higher than Nosema levels in live colonies (4.9 106 7.0 106 spores/bee)
(Table 1). Spore counts in live control colonies (6.5 106 8.3 106 spores/bee)
were similar to that in live treatment colonies (3.5 106 5.6 106 spores/bee)
(t24 = 1.20,P = 0.24).
Residue analysisAnalysis of nectar, honey, and beeswax samples by the USDA-APHIS National Science
Laboratory resulted in no detection of clothianidin in these matrices (LOQ = 1.0 ppb;
LOD = 0.6 ppb). The USDA Laboratory analysis of pollen collected from pollen traps
detected quantifiable levels of clothianidin in only one sample from control fields (1.5
ppb) and one sample from treatment fields (1.1 ppb). Trace amounts less than the LOQ
(1.0 ppb) were detected in one other control pollen sample, and one other treatment
pollen sample. Detections from treatment fields were from samples collected the first
week colonies were in canola, whereas clothianidin detections in control fields were from
samples collected from colonies during the second week.
Enough pollen sample material was available to have the BCS Residue Analysis
Laboratory analyze pollen samples with a more sensitive method (LOQ = 0.5 ppb; LOD
= 0.35 ppb). There were no detections of clothianidin in pollen collected from traps seven
days after placement of hives in control fields (0 detections from 5 samples), but samples
collected at this time from each of the five treatment fields had quantifiable clothianidin
residues at levels of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.1, and 1.1 ppb. For pollen samples collected 14 days after
placement in canola fields, quantifiable residues of clothianidin were found in four of five
treatment samples (0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.9 ppb), and two of five control samples (0.5 and 1.3
ppb). One additional Day 14 control sample had a detectable, but unquantifiable residue of
clothianidin (0.38 ppb). Analyses of samples from all matrices collected after colonies were
moved out of canola fields to the LFCATF had no detections of clothianidin.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 14/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Over the two weeks of exposure of colonies in canola fields, the amount of clothianidin
in the pollen from control colonies was significantly lower than that from colonies
in treatment fields, but there was no significant effect of time or the treatment-time
interaction (Table 1). Over both sampling periods, mean clothianidin residues in colonies
from control fields (0.24 0.44 ppb) were over 3-fold lower than residues in colonies from
treatment fields (0.84 0.49 ppb).
Although a number of other pesticides were detected in various matrices from control
and treatment hives, most of the 173 pesticides included in the broad screen conducted by
the USDA-APHIS National Science Laboratory were not detected (Table 2). The acaricides
coumaphos (or its oxon), fluvalinate, 2,4-dimethylphenyl formamide (the main metabolite
of amitraz), and thymol, and the fungicide chlorothalonil, were detected relatively often in
beeswax, and far less often in nectar, pollen, honey, and dead bees. Other pesticides were
detected rarely or in trace amounts (below the LOQ) (Table 2).
DISCUSSIONThe study results suggest that exposure to canola grown from clothianidin-treated seed
had no adverse effect on honey bee colonies. There were no significant differences between
colonies placed at treatment sites in comparison to control sites for hive weight gain and
honey production. Our average honey yields of 50+ kg/colony (produced over a 3.5 month
period) were higher than the 2012 (37.2 kg) and 5-year (37.7 kg) honey yield averages
(produced over a 56 month period) for Ontario (OMAFRA, 2013b). Considering the
normal turn-over rate of bees in a healthy colony (Winston, 1987), and high recovery
rate of dead bees previously recorded with DZDB traps (Rogers, Williams & Bins, 2009),
the number of dead bees we recorded in front of hives in this study was low and normal.
Likewise, adult strength (number of adult bees) and amount of sealed brood over the
course of summer and autumn 2012 and spring 2013 did not differ between treatments.
With the exception of one control and one treatment colony that died during the summer
(likely as a result of queen loss, which is not unusual given the intense data collection
and transport of the colonies), all colonies performed very well during the summer and
autumn.
Overwintering success likewise did not differ significantly between treatment and
control colonies. Winter colony loss rates were higher than expected, at 37% for control
and 26% for treatment colonies, but overall (32%) were similar to overwintering colony
loss rates reported for the winter of 20122013 for beekeepers in Ontario (38%) and
Canada as a whole (29%) (CAPA, 2013). Disease incidence was low during the summer,
and Varroa mite levels were low for the duration of the study. However, 10-fold more
Nosema spores were detected in bees from dead colonies than live colonies in spring 2013.
Although we did not measure Nosema loads in dead bees from colonies that survived
overwinter, these results suggest that there may be a correlation between overwintering
survival and Nosema infection in our experiment. Colonies with high infection of N. apis
may not survive winter, and those that do typically have poor spring build-up (Pernal
& Clay, 2013). We did not observe high levels of other pests, diseases, or viruses that
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 15/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Tabl
e2
Pes
tici
des
inh
oney
bee
colo
nym
atri
ces
du
rin
gan
daf
ter
exp
osu
reto
can
ola
grow
nfr
omco
ntr
olor
clot
hia
nid
in-t
reat
edse
ed.
Pest
icid
ede
tect
ion
sfr
omdi
ffer
ent
mat
rice
sdu
rin
gan
daf
ter
plac
emen
tof
hon
eybe
eco
lon
ies
inca
nol
afi
elds
grow
nfr
omcl
oth
ian
idin
-tre
ated
seed
,or
un
trea
ted
seed
.Ato
talo
f70
hon
eyan
dn
ecta
rsa
mpl
es,8
0be
esw
axsa
mpl
es,6
0po
llen
sam
ples
,an
d20
dead
bee
sam
ples
wer
ean
alyz
ed.D
etec
tion
sre
por
ted
ator
abov
eth
elim
itof
quan
tifi
cati
onar
epr
esen
ted.
Pes
tici
de
Det
ecti
onan
dm
ean
orm
axco
nce
ntr
atio
n(p
pb
)a
Pol
len
Nec
tar
Hon
eyB
eesw
axD
ead
bee
s
#p
osit
ive
(%)
mea
nm
ax#
pos
itiv
e(%
)m
ean
max
#p
osit
ive
(%)
mea
nm
ax#
pos
itiv
e(%
)m
ean
max
#p
osit
ive
(%)
mea
nm
ax
Azo
xyst
robi
nb
2(3
.3)
17.8
18.6
0
0
0
0
Cap
tan
c0
0
0
0
0
Ch
loro
thal
onilc
,d0
0
0
27(3
3.8)
533
1,06
01
(5.0
)17
917
9
Ch
lorp
yrif
osc
0
0
0
0
0
Cou
map
hos
6(1
0.0)
4.1
8.2
5(7
.1)
2.4
3.8
107.
254
.869
(86.
3)13
31,
990
6(3
0.0)
3.3
5.9
Cou
map
hos
oxon
0
0
1(1
.4)
7.6
7.6
69(8
6.3)
3012
30
2,4
Dim
ethy
lph
enyl
form
amid
e(D
MP
F)0
0
0
14(1
7.5)
39.3
870
Fluv
alin
ate
0
0
0
8
(10.
0)15
.426
.90
Met
olac
hlo
rc0
0
0
0
0
Pen
dim
eth
alin
c0
0
0
0
0
Pro
pan
il0
0
0
1(1
.3)
99.7
99.7
0
Pro
pet
amph
os0
0
1
(1.4
)12
.112
.10
0
Qu
inox
yfen
0
1
(1.4
)18
.618
.60
0
0
Thy
mol
c,d
1(1
.7)
153
153
0
0
8(1
0.0)
305
769
0
Trifl
ura
linb
,c0
0
0
0
0
Vin
cloz
olin
d0
0
0
3(3
.8)
13.6
23.3
0
Not
es.
aM
ean
and
max
valu
esfo
rpo
siti
vede
tect
ion
s.b
Un
quan
tifi
able
trac
eam
oun
tsde
tect
edin
1
dead
bee
sam
ples
.c
Un
quan
tifi
able
trac
eam
oun
tsde
tect
edin
1
pol
len
sam
ples
.d
Un
quan
tifi
able
trac
eam
oun
tsde
tect
edin
1
bees
wax
sam
ples
.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 16/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
cause obvious external symptomologies (e.g., deformed wing virus, sacbrood) in control
or treatment colonies during our 2012 or spring 2013 assessments. Currie, Pernal &
Guzman-Novoa (2010) suggested that direct and indirect effects associated with failure to
control Varroa mites is the main cause of increased rates of winter colony losses in Canada,
but that weather, fall feeding management, presence of Nosema spp., viruses and other
diseases, and spring build-up of colonies, also contribute to high overwinter mortality.
Pollen trapped at hive entrances revealed a high use of the canola study fields by foraging
bees. The percentage of canola pollen in traps was high (88% during peak bloom) and
there was no other canola available within 10 km of each study field. During week two,
the use of some of the study fields by pollen foragers, as indicated by the proportion of
canola pollen collected in traps, declined sharply. This is not unexpected as honey bees
have complex diet requirements (Haydak, 1970) and as generalists are known to utilize a
wide variety of pollen and nectar sources (Winston, 1987). Workers expand their foraging
range as they become more familiar with their surroundings, and can rapidly change their
foraging patterns in response to changes in colony pollen requirements, with old floral
patches being abandoned for new more favored floral resources as they are discovered
(Seeley, 1985; Visscher & Seeley, 1982; Winston, 1987).
Residue analysis indicated that honey bees were exposed to low levels (0.51.9 ppb)
of clothianidin in pollen. These amounts are comparable to clothianidin residue levels
detected in pollen from seed-treated crops in other studies (Blacquiere et al., 2012; EFSA,
2012a). These levels would not be expected to cause adverse effects based on the previously
confirmed No Observable Adverse Effects Concentration (NOAEC) of 20 ppb (Schmuck
& Keppler, 2003). We did not detect clothianidin residues in nectar, honey, or beeswax.
Several other studies have reported clothianidin residues in these matrices when honey bee
colonies were placed in or adjacent to clothianidin seed-treated canola. However, residues
levels in these matrices are generally lower than those detected in pollen, and often residues
are not detected at all in these matrices (Blacquiere et al., 2012; Cutler & Scott-Dupree, 2007;
EFSA, 2012a; EFSA, 2012b; Mullin et al., 2010; Pilling et al., 2013; Walters, 2013).
Extensive efforts were made to isolate control sites from treatment sites, by locating
fields at least 10 km from each other. This was done to avoid movement of foragers
between treatment and control fields, which we experienced in a previous experiment
(Cutler & Scott-Dupree, 2007). Nevertheless, low levels of clothianidin were detected in
pollen samples collected toward the end of the bloom (Day 14) from control sites 2, 3, and
6. The source of clothianidin in pollen from these colonies is unclear. Given the distance
between experimental fields, it is highly unlikely that bees from control fields foraged in
our treated fields (Winston, 1987). It also seems highly unlikely that residues in pollen were
the result of carry-over in soil from previous years; if this were the case, we would have
expected to find clothianidin residues in week 1 control pollen as well. All control sites
were planted before treatment sites, so there is no possibility of residues being picked up
on or dislodged from the seeding equipment. Control and treatment seeds are also easily
distinguished by color, and our records show no mix-up occurred during planting. There is
also no indication in our records of contamination or mix-up during sample collection.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 17/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Clothianidin detections from control colonies may have been a result of bees foraging
off-site during the end of canola bloom. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that other
fungicides and insecticides not used in our experiment were detected in colony matrices
(Table 2). Analysis of pollen trap contents showed that bees continued to forage at a high
rate on canola in week two at control site 6 (86% canola pollen; down from 98% canola
pollen in week one at this site), but control sites 2 and 3 in week two only had canola pollen
percentages of 1%, and 15%, respectively. This indicates a substantial amount of off-site
foraging at these sites was occurring by the end of week two. Samples from control sites 2,
3, and 6 had very low proportions of corn pollen (5.0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively), and
soybean pollen was not found in any of the pollen samples. Thus, it seems unlikely that the
source of clothianidin was from pollen of corn and soybean. The vast majority of pollen
from sites 2 and 3 during week 2 was from wild or ornamental plants, and these pollens
may have been contaminated with clothianidin via sprays of thiamethoxam. Clothianidin
is the major break-down product of thiamethoxam, and soil applications (transplant-drip)
or foliar sprays of thiamethoxam can result in detections of clothianidin in pollen and
nectar (Dively & Kamel, 2012). Actara R 25WG (25% thiamethoxam) is registered in
Ontario for use against insect pests on a wide range of tree fruits, berries, and vegetables.
It is possible that sprays of thiamethoxam drifted on to plants, which were subsequently
foraged upon by bees from our control colonies. Irrespective of the source of clothianidin
in pollen from our control colonies, our results illustrate the difficulty of conducting a
perfectly controlled field study with free-ranging honey bees in real-world agroecosystems.
This is especially true when conducting experiments with neonicotinoids, which are now
widely used on a large number of crops and commodities.
In summary, all colonies performed well during and after the exposure period, and had
overwintering success similar to colonies in Ontario and Canada on the whole. Although
various laboratory studies have reported sublethal effects in individual honey bees exposed
to low doses of neonicotinoid insecticides, the results of the present study suggest that
foraging on clothianidin seed-treated crops, under realistic conditions, poses low risk to
honey bee colonies. Our results are not conclusive as low concentrations of clothianidin
were detected in some control pollen samples, but the results are consistent with those
of two previous honey bee field studies with clothianidin seed-treated canola (Cutler &
Scott-Dupree, 2007; Scott-Dupree et al., 2001). All three studies have shown that honey bee
colonies placed during bloom in or next to canola fields grown from clothianidin-treated
seeds perform as well as colonies in fields not treated with clothianidin, and as well as
what is typical for honey bee colonies in Ontario. The results are also in agreement
with semi-field (field cage, Tier 2) and field studies that have found that individual bees
and colonies are not adversely impacted when foraging on neonicotinoid seed-treated
crops (Nguyen et al., 2009; Pilling et al., 2013; Pohorecka et al., 2012; Schmuck & Keppler,
2003; Schneider et al., 2012; Tasei, Ripault & Rivault, 2001; Thompson et al., 2013), and
corroborate the experiences of beekeepers in western Canada who for more than a decade
have been producing honey in agroecosystems dominated by clothianidin seed-treated
canola.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 18/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe floral source analysis was conducted by Johanne Parent (Laboratoire BSL, Rimouski,
QC). Tracheal mite and Nosema analyses were conducted by Brenda Perrin (Cameron,
ON). Seed treatment was led by Benjamin Eakers (BCS). Site selection, planting, and
management were overseen by Keith Ardiel (BCS), and conducted by Scott Ditschun,
Robyn Walsh, and Katie Caldecott. We thank Paul Kelly, Apiary Supervisor at HBRF, and
his support staff for advice and technical support throughout this study. We thank the
beekeepers (from Canada and the US) and provincial and federal government personnel
who provided helpful suggestions on the study design during a day-long field tour and
open discussion at the University of Guelph in June 2012. Roger Simonds (USDA), and
Gary Christensen and Audry Miller (BCS) led the residue analysis component of this study.
Data collection and field assistance from Drew Mochrie, Daniel Thurston, Hilary Little,
Cam Menzies, Devon Hardy and Elaine Kennedy is gratefully acknowledged.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
FundingFunding of all expenses for this study was through Bayer CropScience. Bayer CropScience
personnel had no role in collecting or interpreting field and honey bee colony data,
or in writing the manuscript. Bayer CropScience employed MS and ADM as summer
students, and LB as the GLP Study Director for this study. Bayer CropScience personnel
assisted in treating seeds, establishing field sites, and conducting residue analysis of
back-up pollen samples. GCC and CDS-D received no financial payment, research grants,
travel grants, honoraria, or gifts of any kind in conducting this research or writing the
manuscript. In addition to GCC, CDS-D, and LB, personnel from Bayer CropScience,
the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Health Canada Pest Management
Regulatory Agency had input into the experimental design. During an open tour of
the experimental sites, members of the beekeeping community and provincial honey bee
specialists also provided suggestions that were incorporated into the study design.
Competing InterestsBayer CropScience employed MS and ADM as summer students, and LB as the GLP Study
Director for this study. LB is an employee of Smithers Viscient LLC.
Author Contributions G. Christopher Cutler conceived and designed the experiments, performed the
experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables,
reviewed drafts of the paper.
Cynthia D. Scott-Dupree and Larry Brewer conceived and designed the experiments,
performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the
paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Maryam Sultan performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper,
reviewed drafts of the paper.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 19/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
Andrew D. McFarlane performed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of
the paper.
Data DepositionThe following information was supplied regarding the deposition of related data:
Dryad: 10.5061/dryad.td03f
Supplemental InformationSupplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/
10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-information.
REFERENCESAOAC. 2007. Pesticide residues in foods by acetonitrile extraction and partitioning with
magnesium sulfate. AOAC International, Official Methods of Analysis. Method No.AOAC2007.01.
Billian P, Schoning R. 2009. Analytical method 01131 for the determination of residues ofthiamethoxam and clothianidin in/on honey bees, nectar (honey), pollen and flowers byHPLC-MS/MS. February 10, 2009. Bayer CropScience Method Number: 01131.
Blacquiere T, Smagghe G, van Gestel CAM, Mommaerts V. 2012. Neonicotinoids in bees:a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21:973992DOI 10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x.
Campbell PJ. 2013. Declining European bee health: banning the neonicotinoids is not the answer.Outlooks on Pest Management 24:5257 DOI 10.1564/v24 apr 02.
CAPA. 2013. CAPA statement on honey bee wintering losses in Canada (2012). CanadianAssociation of Professional Apiculturists. Available at http://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdf (accessed 10 September 2014).
Cresswell JE. 2013. Environmental audit committeepollinators and pesticides: written evidencesubmitted by Dr. James Cresswell, University of Exeter. Available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htm (accessed 27 September2013).
Cresswell JE, Thompson HM. 2012. Comment on A common pesticide decreases foraging successand survival in honey bees. Science 337:1453 DOI 10.1126/science.1224618.
Currie RW, Pernal SF, Guzman-Novoa E. 2010. Honey bee colony losses in Canada. Journal ofApicultural Research 49:104106 DOI 10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.18.
Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD. 2007. Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has nolong-term impact on honey bees. Journal of Economic Entomology 100:765772DOI 10.1603/0022-0493(2007)100[765:ETCSCH]2.0.CO;2.
Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD. 2014. A field study examining the effects of exposure toneonicotinoid seed-treated corn on commercial bumble bee colonies. Ecotoxicology23:17551763 DOI 10.1007/s10646-10014-11340-10645.
Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD, Drexler DM. 2014. Honey bees, neonicotinoids and bee incidentreports: the Canadian situation. Pest Management Science 70:779783 DOI 10.1002/ps.3613.
Dively GP, Kamel A. 2012. Insecticide residues in pollen and nectar of a cucurbit crop and theirpotential exposure to pollinators. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 60:44494456DOI 10.1021/jf205393x.
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 20/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.td03fhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652#supplemental-informationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0863-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1564/v24_apr_02http://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://capabees.org/content/uploads/2012/10/2012capawintloss1.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668we10.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1224618http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.18http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493(2007)100[765:ETCSCH]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10646-10014-11340-10645http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.3613http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf205393xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.652
EFSA. 2012a. Scientific opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment ofplant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal10:2668 DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668.
EFSA. 2012b. Statement on the findings in recent studies investigating sub-lethal effects in bees ofsome neonicotinoids in consideration of the uses currently authorised in Europe. EFSA Journal10:2752 DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752.
EPA. 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Good Laboratory Practice Standards, 40CFR Part 160 PP-300165A; FRL-3518-2, RIN 2070-AB68, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide andRodenticide Act (FIFRA). Washington, DC.
Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine NE. 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely affectsindividual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491:105108 DOI 10.1038/nature11585.
Haydak MH. 1970. Honey bee nutrition. Annual Review of Entomology 15:143156DOI 10.1146/annurev.en.15.010170.001043.
Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency. 2013. Pollinator protection: reducingrisk from treated seed. Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/ fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.php (accessed 27 May 2013).
Henry M, Beguin M, Requier F, Rollin O, Odoux JF, Aupinel P, Aptel J, Tchamitchian S,Decourtye A. 2012. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honeybees. Science 336:348350 DOI 10.1126/science.1215039.
Hurlbert SH. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. EcologicalMonographs 54:187211 DOI 10.2307/1942661.
Iwasa T, Motoyama N, Ambrose JT, Roe RM. 2004. Mechanism for the differential toxicityof neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee Apis mellifera. Crop Protection 23:371378DOI 10.1016/j.cropro.2003.08.018.
Jeschke P, Nauen R. 2008. Neonicotinoidsfrom zero to hero in insecticide chemistry. PestManagement Science 64:10841098 DOI 10.1002/ps.1631.
Kamel A. 2009. Refined methodology for the determination of neonicotinoid pesticides andtheir metabolites in honey bees and bee products by liquid chromatographytandemmass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58:59265931DOI 10.1021/jf904120n.
Matsuda K, Buckingham SD, Kleier D, Rauh JJ, Grauso M, Sattelle DB. 2001. Neonicotinoids:insecticides acting on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences22:573580 DOI 10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01820-4.
Mullin CA, Frazier M, Frazier JL, Ashcraft S, Simonds R, vanEngelsdorp D, Pettis JS. 2010. Highlevels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey beehealth. PLoS ONE 5:e9754 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0009754.
Nguyen BK, Saegerman C, Pirard C, Mignon J, Widart J, Tuirionet B, Verheggen FJ,Berkvens D, De Pauw E, Haubruge E. 2009. Does imidacloprid seed-treated maize have animpact on honey bee mortality? Journal of Economic Entomology 102:616623DOI 10.1603/029.102.0220.
Nuyttens D, Devarrewaere W, Verboven P, Foque D. 2013. Pesticide-laden dust emission anddrift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review. Pest Management Science 69:564575DOI 10.1002/ps.3485.
OBA. 2012. Varroa mitessampling and monitoring infestation levels. Ontario BeekeepersAssociation, factsheet. Available at http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/document/Copy-of-varroa-sampling-EN.pdf (accessed 20 September 2013).
Cutler et al. (2014), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.652 21/23
https://peerj.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11585http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.15.010170.001043http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.